Bell v Hartnett

In the matter of *Bell v Hartnett*, the plaintiff, Mr Bell, sought an order that the defendant solicitor, Mr Hartnett, disgorge fees from the proceeds of a mortgagee sale. The proceedings were initially in the Equity Division of the Supreme Court and were subsequently removed to the Court of Appeal.

The central legal issue before the Court of Appeal was whether Mr Bell's claim for the solicitor to disgorge an amount in excess of reasonable legal costs constituted an exercise of the court's disciplinary jurisdiction. The court was required to determine if the nature of the claim was such that it invoked the Supreme Court's supervisory or disciplinary powers over legal practitioners, or if it was a claim for the recovery of money.

The Court of Appeal reasoned that an order to disgorge excess legal costs was not a claim for costs against a legal practitioner in the traditional sense, nor did it necessarily invoke the court's disciplinary jurisdiction. The court found that the Supreme Court's disciplinary jurisdiction was not enlivened by the claim as framed.

Consequently, the Court of Appeal dismissed the notice of motion filed by Mr Hartnett on 7 December 2021 and ordered that Mr Hartnett pay the plaintiff's costs of the motion forthwith.